DETAILED ACTION
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax, Regular postal mail, or EFS Web (PTO/SB/439).
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/7/20233 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the documents are blurry (NPL Ref No. 2, 3, 5, and 6). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 are blurry and cannot be read. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Regarding claim 1, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP §2106.03. The claim recites method steps; thus, the claim is directed to a process which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The limitations “compare the at least one event parameter identifier to a set of predefined event parameter rules for respective event processors of a set of event processors; determination that the at least one event parameter identifier satisfies the set of predefined event parameter rules for the respective event processors” as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong 2, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
In this case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “A system, comprising: one or more processors; a memory; and one or more programs stored in the memory, the one or more programs comprising instructions,” “event data structure,” “asset,” event parameter,” “event data, “set of event processors,” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or merely a generic computer or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element “receive an event data structure generated by a mobile device based on an inspection event related to an asset located within an operational environment, wherein a first portion of the event data structure comprises at least one event parameter identifier related to the inspection event, and a second portion of the event data structure comprises event data related to the inspection event,” fails to meaningfully limit the claim because the element is regarding data gathering and applying the method for execution, thus is categorized as insignificant extra solution activity, thus not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The additional element “route the event data structure to a particular event processor from the set of event processors in response to a determination,” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because it only amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of data input and output. Data input and output is consider well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element “process event data of the event data structure using the particular event processor,” is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements mentioned above do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “A system, comprising: one or more processors; a memory; and one or more programs stored in the memory, the one or more programs comprising instructions,” “event data structure,” “asset,” event parameter,” “event data, “set of event processors,” are merely a generic computer or generic computer components to apply the judicial exception which cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims include additional elements “receive an event data structure generated by a mobile device based on an inspection event related to an asset located within an operational environment, wherein a first portion of the event data structure comprises at least one event parameter identifier related to the inspection event, and a second portion of the event data structure comprises event data related to the inspection event,” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are essentially regarding data gathering and applying method for execution. Under step 2B, the courts have identified data gathering as well understood routine and conventional. See MEPE 2106.05d.
The additional element “route the event data structure to a particular event processor from the set of event processors in response to a determination,” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it only amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of data input and output. Data input and output is consider well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element “process event data of the event data structure using the particular event processor,” fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “process event data,” is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements mentioned above are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and the claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception. Thus, the claims do not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims include additional elements “the one or more programs further comprising instructions configured to: receive the event data structure from the mobile device in response to a network connection being established between the mobile device and a cloud platform associated with the system.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, is merely data gathering which the court have identified as well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 3, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “the one or more programs further comprising instructions configured to: receive the event data structure from the mobile device in response to a determination that the at least one event parameter identifier matches a predefined event parameter identifier included in an application programming interface (API) configuration data object for the set of event processors.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, is merely data gathering which the court have identified as well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 4, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “the one or more programs further comprising instructions configured to: transform the event data structure into a data format associated with a serializer component of the particular event processor.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, is merely data gathering which the court have identified as well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 5, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “the one or more programs further comprising instructions configured to: route the event data structure to a data queue for future processing of the event data structure in response to a determination that the at least one event parameter identifier does not satisfy the set of predefined event parameter rules for the set of event processors.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, because it only amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of data input and output. Data input and output is consider well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 6, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “wherein the particular event processor is a hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) connector processor configured to redirect the event data structure to an HTTP endpoint of a network.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, is merely data gathering which the court have identified as well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 7, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “wherein the particular event processor is a cold-storage processor configured to store the event data structure in a datastore associated with data archiving functionality for event data structures.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, is merely data gathering which the court have identified as well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 8, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “wherein the particular event processor is a hot-storage processor configured to store the event data structure in a relational database associated with data querying functionality for event data structures.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, is merely data gathering which the court have identified as well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 9, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “wherein the particular event processor is a stream processing processor configured to allocate the event data structure to an event stream for rendering of visualization data associated with the event data structure via an electronic interface of the mobile device.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, is merely data gathering which the court have identified as well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 10, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 8. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “the one or more programs further comprising instructions configured to: determine whether the event data of the event data structure exceeds an operational limit; and trigger one or more actions associated with an operational process related to the inspection event upon a determination that the operational limit is exceeded.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, is merely data gathering which the court have identified as well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 11, is an independent method claim corresponding with system claim 1, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12-17, are dependent method claims, corresponding to claims 2, 3, 6-9 respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, is an independent computer program product claim corresponding with system claim 1, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19-20, are dependent computer program product claims, corresponding to claims 2-3, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 18-20, the recited step of the “computer program product comprising at least one computer-readable medium” is not statutory because the medium includes signals, as stated in of the specification ¶[0124]. Signals do not fall within a statutory category since they clearly are not a series of steps or acts to constitute a process, not a mechanical device or combination of mechanical devices to constitute a machine, not a tangible physical article or object which is some form of matter to be a product and constitute a manufacture, and not a composition of two or more substances to constitute a composition of matter. See MPEP § 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 11-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitin et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2014/0047102) in view of Makki et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2014/0304262).
Regarding claim 1, Nitin teaches a system, comprising: one or more processors; a memory; and one or more programs stored in the memory (see FIG. 2 illustrates an example of an implementation of the system of FIG. 1. FIG. 2 shows a processor 140 coupled to non-transitory computer-readable storage devices 142 and 150 as well as to the network), the one or more programs comprising instructions configured to: receive an event data structure generated by a mobile device based on an inspection event related to an asset located within an operational environment (see ¶[0014] “The monitoring engine 90 detects the occurrence of events (e.g., a configuration item that is not performing as expected as described herein) associated with the various configuration items.”),
wherein a first portion of the event data structure comprises at least one event parameter identifier related to the inspection event, and a second portion of the event data structure comprises event data related to the inspection event (see ¶[0018] “] FIG. 3 shows an example of the CMDB 152. In the example of FIG. 3, for each configuration item the CMDB 152 includes a record 151 that may store the following pieces of information: configuration parameters 160, access parameters 162, metric information 164, and causal rules 166. Different or additional pieces of information may be included as well. The configuration parameters 160 include a list of the specific parameters that are configurable for the particular configuration item. For example, in the case of a processor, the configuration parameters may include an alert that is triggered if the processor becomes too hot or the processor utilization becomes too high. In the case of a redundant array of independent discs (RAID) storage subsystem, the configuration parameters may include an alert triggered by a disk failure, a performance bottleneck, etc. The access parameters 162 include information indicative of how to access each configuration item. Such access parameters may include an address (e.g., an Internet Protocol (IP) address), instance name of a database server, etc.” see ¶[0019] “The metric information 164 includes one or more identifications that identify individual metrics. The metrics identified by the metric identifications include any type of value or parameter that may be measured, computed, or calculated for a given configuration item. An example of a metric for a processor may be processor utilization. An example of a metric for a storage subsystem may be the amount of used storage and/or the amount of available storage. An event is identified by the monitoring engine 90 if a performance metric for a configuration item falls outside an acceptable range as specified by a corresponding metric in metric information 164.”);
Nitin does not expressly disclose, however, Makki teaches in response to the event data structure: compare the at least one event parameter identifier to a set of predefined event parameter rules for respective event processors of a set of event processors (see ¶ [0045] “and comparing the first time value to the second time value based on a threshold comparison to determine that the first location value can be provided as relevant location information for the first digital asset is performed.”); route the event data structure to a particular event processor from the set of event processors in response to a determination that the at least one event parameter identifier satisfies the set of predefined event parameter rules for the respective event processors (see ¶[0035] “In some embodiments, device 202 communicates with event matching server 206 via the Internet for providing event data metadata synthesis for digital assets using various techniques described herein. For example, event matching server 206 can receive certain context information from device 202 for the digital asset (e.g., a timestamp and a GPS stamp, and/or other context information), and the event matching server 206 can return a matching event (e.g., or a set of possibly matching events to device 202, which can be presented to the user for selection/verification of the properly matching event, if any). As another example, the event matching server 206 can provide additional event data metadata (e.g., in response to a request based on an event parameter, or in combination with a response that provides a response to a request for matching event data based on context information parameters), which can be used by device 202 to execute event data metadata synthesis using various techniques described herein. In some embodiments, events matching server 206 is an events matching service, such as a web service that provides event matching to requests (e.g., using a public or private event API, that receives as parameters various context information, such as a date/time parameter and a location parameter, and returns a matching event”); and process event data of the event data structure using the particular event processor (see ¶[0034] “In some embodiments, computer system 100 executes an application for analyzing digital assets using various techniques described herein. In some embodiments, computer system 100 executes an application for communicating with web services for tagging, categorizing, and/or analyzing digital assets using various techniques described herein. For example, computer system 100 can use the network interface 116 for communicating with web services for providing event data metadata synthesis for digital assets using various techniques described herein.”).
Hence, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to modify the teachings of Nitin by adapting Makki to enrich the digital asset's data.
Regarding claim 2, Nitin does not expressly disclose, however, Makki teaches the one or more programs further comprising instructions configured to: receive the event data structure from the mobile device in response to a network connection being established between the mobile device and a cloud platform associated with the system (see ¶[0040] “In some embodiments, event data matching synthesis is implemented as a network based service (e.g., web service or cloud service). In some embodiments, event data matching synthesis is implemented as a client based application or platform (e.g., Adobe Photoshop.RTM.) that executes on a client device (e.g., system 100) at least in part, and also communicates with a remote device (e.g., event matching server 300).”).
Hence, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to modify the teachings of Nitin by adapting Makki to enrich the digital asset's data.
Regarding claim 3, Nitin does not expressly disclose, however, Makki teaches the one or more programs further comprising instructions configured to: receive the event data structure from the mobile device in response to a determination that the at least one event parameter identifier matches a predefined event parameter identifier included in an application programming interface (API) configuration data object for the set of event processors (see ¶[0035] “In some embodiments, events matching server 206 is an events matching service, such as a web service that provides event matching to requests (e.g., using a public or private event API, that receives as parameters various context information, such as a date/time parameter and a location parameter, and returns a matching event”)
Hence, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to modify the teachings of Nitin by adapting Makki to enrich the digital asset's data.
Regarding claim 5, Nitin does not expressly disclose, however, Makki teaches the one or more programs further comprising instructions configured to: route the event data structure to a data queue for future processing of the event data structure in response to a determination that the at least one event parameter identifier does not satisfy the set of predefined event parameter rules for the set of event processors (see ¶[0035] “or if no exact match can be determined, a set of possible matches). In some embodiments, the event information is stored locally in a local data store or via communication with a local event matching service. In some embodiments, event information is periodically updated from a local or remote event data source and stored locally at the device.”).
Hence, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to modify the teachings of Nitin by adapting Makki to enrich the digital asset's data.
Regarding claim 11, is an independent method claim corresponding with system claim 1, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12-13, are dependent method claims, corresponding to claims 2, and 3 respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, is an independent computer program product claim corresponding with system claim 1, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons. In addition, Nitin teaches a computer program product comprising at least one computer-readable storage medium having program instructions embodied thereon, the program instructions executable by a processor (see FIG. 2 illustrates an example of an implementation of the system of FIG. 1. FIG. 2 shows a processor 140 coupled to non-transitory computer-readable storage devices 142 and 150 as well as to the network).
Regarding claim 19-20, are dependent computer program product claims, corresponding to claims 2-3, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 9, 14, and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitin et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2014/0047102) in view of Makki et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2014/0304262) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Belleville (U.S. PG PUB 2019/0073665).
Regarding claim 4, Nitin and Makki do not expressly disclose, however, Belleville teaches the one or more programs further comprising instructions configured to: transform the event data structure into a data format associated with a serializer component of the particular event processor (see ¶[0041] “The digital asset management platform backend infrastructure can be implemented, for example, on a Linux server, running an HTTP endpoint, which parses requests (e.g., API calls via platform API 222) that are made in the JSON format, and provides responses also in the JSON format. The data (e.g., images, text, key value pairs, etc.) included in the body of the JSON requests/responses can be binary data in base64 encoded JSON. The various components and engines of the backend infrastructure can communicate/coordinate with each other via a message bus implemented, for example, using a Kafka queue. Other configurations and implementations of a digital wallet asset management platform are possible.”).
Hence, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to modify the teachings of Nitin by adapting Makki to enrich the digital asset's data.
Regarding claim 6, Nitin and Makki do not expressly disclose, however, Belleville wherein the particular event processor is a hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) connector processor configured to redirect the event data structure to an HTTP endpoint of a network (see ¶[0041] “The digital asset management platform backend infrastructure can be implemented, for example, on a Linux server, running an HTTP endpoint, which parses requests (e.g., API calls via platform API 222) that are made in the JSON format, and provides responses also in the JSON format.”).
Regarding claim 9, Nitin and Makki do not expressly disclose, however, Belleville wherein the particular event processor is a stream processing processor configured to allocate the event data structure to an event stream for rendering of visualization data associated with the event data structure via an electronic interface of the mobile device (see ¶ [0051] “Rulesets can be configured/defined (e.g., by a customer/owner of the management asset platform) via a user interface such as digital wallet asset configuration interface engine 212 of front end 210, as well as specified directly via an API call to the rule engine.”).
Regarding claim 14, and 17, are dependent method claims, corresponding to claims 6, and 9 respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 7, 8, and 15, 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitin et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2014/0047102) in view of Makki et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2014/0304262) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Wu (U.S. PG PUB 2022/0214995).
Regarding claim 7, Nitin and Makki do not expressly disclose, however, Wu teaches wherein the particular event processor is a cold-storage processor configured to store the event data structure in a datastore associated with data archiving functionality for event data structures (see ¶[0162] “An archiving consensus in FIG. 6 refers to an operation performed by the consensus nodes during the data archiving process. In the process of data archiving, the target block data may also be stored in a distributed storage system. The distributed storage system may be used for cold storage, that is, data therein is not frequently accessed”).
Hence, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to modify the teachings of Nitin and Makki by adapting Wu for improvement to archive data (see ¶[0008] of Wu).
Regarding claim 8, Nitin and Makki do not expressly disclose, however, Wu teaches wherein the particular event processor is a hot-storage processor configured to store the event data structure in a relational database associated with data querying functionality for event data structures (see ¶[0162] “system may be used for hot storage, that is, data stored therein is frequently accessed” see ¶[0070] “For the transaction of querying data, a corresponding key-value pair is queried from the state database, and a query result is returned (for example, the query result may be a value corresponding to the key in the submitted transaction.”).
Hence, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to modify the teachings of Nitin and Makki by adapting Wu for improvement to archive data (see ¶[0008] of Wu).
Regarding claim 15, and 16, are dependent method claims, corresponding to claims 7, and 8 respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitin et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2014/0047102) in view of Makki et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2014/0304262) and Wu (U.S. PG PUB 2002/0214995) as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Barnes (U.S. PG PUB 2023/0300623).
Regarding claim 10, Nitin and Makki do not expressly disclose, however, Barnes teaches the one or more programs further comprising instructions configured to: determine whether the event data of the event data structure exceeds an operational limit (see ¶[0125] “The event mapper may consider all events based at least in part on the type, and may compare these events to the system-trigger thresholds, which may be configured by an operator. When one of these thresholds is exceed, the event mapper may trigger a system-wide notification and alarm.”); and trigger one or more actions associated with an operational process related to the inspection event upon a determination that the operational limit is exceeded (see ¶[0124] “The trigger monitoring may enable system-level monitoring of event types against a system-wide threshold alarm level and then notifying when any electronic device or location exceeds one of these levels.”).
Hence, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to modify the teachings of Nitin, Makki, and Wu by adapting Barnes to reduce the computer-system overhead and may provide a notification in the event of a threshold being exceeded (see ¶[0125] of Barnes).
Interview Requests
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.133(a)(3), requests for interview must be made in advance. Interview requests are to be made by telephone (571-270-7848) call or FAX (571-270-8848). Applicants must provide a detailed agenda as to what will be discussed (generic statement such as “discuss §102 rejection” or “discuss rejections of claims 1-3” may be denied interview). The detail agenda along with any proposed amendments is to be written on a PTOL-413A or a custom form and should be faxed (or emailed, subject to MPEP 713.01.I / MPEP 502.03) to the Examiner at least 5 business days prior to the scheduled interview. Interview requests submitted within amendments may be denied because the Examiner was not notified, in advance, of the Applicant Initiated Interview Request and due to time constraints may not be able to review the interview request to prior to the mailing of the next Office Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Price et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2014/0022075) distributes warning with a description the probability of the severity of the hazardous condition producing the warning and incorporating a policy engine for expressing rules for responding to the warning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARINA YUN whose telephone number is (571)270-7848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, 9-4 (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to call.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Carina Yun
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/CARINA YUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2194